Financial Services

5 automated security scanners

Trading System Security

Purpose: The Trading System Security Scanner is designed to safeguard trading systems by identifying potential threats such as front-running, market manipulation, and timing attacks. It evaluates company documentation, public policy pages, trust center information, and compliance certifications to ensure robust security practices are in place.

What It Detects:

Front-Running Indicators: The scanner identifies unfair advantages in trading activities through language indicating priority access or preferential treatment, sophisticated execution strategies without proper disclosure, vague claims of market expertise, and unauthorized access to trading data.
Market Manipulation Patterns: It detects artificial price movements suggesting insider information usage, algorithmic trading lacking transparency, suspicious trading volume spikes or patterns, and unusual market behavior attributed to external factors.
Timing Attack Indicators: The scanner flags exploiting system vulnerabilities at critical times, describes synchronized trading activities, claims of rapid execution capabilities without justification, and vague references to high-frequency trading strategies.
Security Policy Compliance: It checks for the presence of security policy documents, incident response procedures, data protection measures, access control policies, and identifies missing or inadequate security documentation.
Compliance Certifications: The scanner detects mentions of SOC 2 compliance, ISO 27001 certifications, penetration test results, and vulnerability scan assessments.

Inputs Required:

domain (string): Primary domain to analyze (e.g., acme.com) - This parameter is essential for the scanner to gather information from the specified website.
company_name (string): Company name for statement searching (e.g., “Acme Corporation”) - Used to search relevant documentation and statements on the company’s site.

Business Impact: Ensuring robust trading system security is crucial as it directly impacts financial integrity, market fairness, and investor trust. The scanner helps in maintaining compliance with regulatory standards and reducing risks associated with unauthorized access, data breaches, and unfair trading practices.

Risk Levels:

Critical: Conditions that could lead to significant financial loss or reputational damage if not addressed immediately, such as unauthorized access to sensitive trading data or insider information usage.
High: Conditions that pose a high risk of market manipulation or system vulnerabilities being exploited during critical trading times, potentially causing substantial losses or regulatory penalties.
Medium: Conditions involving incomplete security policies, lack of transparency in trading algorithms, or unverified compliance certifications which could lead to medium risks but are still significant enough to warrant attention.
Low: Informal findings such as vague descriptions of market expertise without supporting evidence or minor access control issues that do not significantly impact the trading system’s integrity.
Info: General informational findings about missing documentation, outdated policies, or unverified compliance status which provide baseline understanding but do not directly affect security posture critically.

If specific risk levels are not detailed in the README, these inferred levels reflect potential severity based on the scanner’s purpose and impact.

Example Findings: The scanner might flag a company with vague claims of market expertise without providing evidence of their trading strategies or unauthorized access to internal trading data that could lead to critical findings. Alternatively, it might identify a lack of incident response procedures as high-risk conditions requiring immediate attention.

Payment Card Security

Purpose: Ensures compliance with PCI DSS standards and protects card data by detecting vulnerabilities in DNS configurations, HTTP security headers, TLS/SSL implementations, open ports, and API endpoints.

What It Detects:

DNS Configuration Issues:
- Missing or improperly configured TXT records for SPF (Sender Policy Framework)
- Incorrect MX (Mail Exchange) records pointing to unauthorized servers
- Absence of NS (Name Server) records indicating potential DNS hijacking risks
- Inadequate CAA (Certification Authority Authorization) records allowing unauthorized certificate issuance
- Weak DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) policies
HTTP Security Headers:
- Missing or improperly configured Strict-Transport-Security header to enforce HTTPS usage
- Absence of Content-Security-Policy header to prevent XSS and data injection attacks
- Lack of X-Frame-Options header to protect against clickjacking
- Inadequate X-Content-Type-Options header to prevent MIME type sniffing
TLS/SSL Vulnerabilities:
- Use of outdated protocols such as TLSv1.0 or TLSv1.1
- Weak cipher suites including RC4, DES, and MD5
- Expiry or invalid SSL/TLS certificates
- Insecure renegotiation vulnerabilities
Open Ports and Services:
- Unsecured open ports that could be exploited by attackers
- Presence of outdated or vulnerable services running on the server
- Misconfigured firewalls allowing unauthorized access
API Security:
- Lack of proper authentication mechanisms for APIs
- Insecure data transmission over unencrypted channels
- Absence of rate limiting to prevent brute force attacks
- Vulnerable endpoints susceptible to common web exploits (e.g., SQL injection, XSS)

Inputs Required:

domain (string): Primary domain to analyze (e.g., acme.com)

Business Impact: Ensuring compliance with PCI DSS standards is crucial for protecting sensitive cardholder data and reducing the risk of data breaches. This scanner helps organizations identify and remediate vulnerabilities that could lead to unauthorized access or exposure of card data, thereby enhancing overall security posture and trust in their systems.

Risk Levels:

Critical: Conditions where DNS configurations are severely compromised, HTTP headers are missing essential protections, TLS/SSL certificates are invalid or weak, open ports expose critical services, or APIs lack proper authentication mechanisms.
High: Conditions involving outdated protocols, weak cipher suites, misconfigured firewalls, and unsecured open ports that could be exploited by attackers.
Medium: Conditions where SSL/TLS certificates are nearing expiration, missing security headers pose a risk to data integrity, and some services run on outdated versions.
Low: Informative findings about potentially unnecessary or legacy protocols being used but not affecting critical security functions.
Info: General information about the domain setup that does not directly impact PCI DSS compliance but could be improved for enhanced security practices.

Example Findings:

A DNS configuration missing an SPF record, which can lead to email spoofing and potential phishing attacks.
An API endpoint without any form of authentication, making it vulnerable to unauthorized access and data manipulation.

SWIFT Network Security

Purpose: The SWIFT Network Security Scanner is designed to ensure compliance with SWIFT Customer Security Program (CSP) standards and verify the integrity of SWIFT messages. It evaluates company security documentation, public policy pages, trust center information, and compliance certifications to identify gaps or discrepancies in the provided documentation and provides recommendations for improvement based on findings.

What It Detects:

Security Policy Compliance: Identifies whether a comprehensive security policy is present or absent, checks for detailed incident response procedures, verifies data protection measures, and ensures robust access control mechanisms are described.
Maturity Indicators: Confirms SOC 2 compliance certification, validates ISO 27001 certification, looks for evidence of penetration testing, and detects regular vulnerability scanning or assessment activities.
Policy Review: Analyzes company security documentation for adherence to SWIFT CSP requirements, scrutinizes public policy pages for transparency and completeness, examines trust center information for detailed security practices, and validates compliance certifications against recognized standards.
Manual Evaluation: Conducts a manual review of identified documents to ensure comprehensive coverage, cross-references findings with known SWIFT CSP guidelines, identifies gaps or discrepancies in the provided documentation, and provides recommendations for improvement based on findings.
Message Integrity Verification: Ensures that SWIFT messages are transmitted securely and without tampering, checks for adherence to encryption standards, validates message authentication mechanisms, and detects any anomalies or inconsistencies in message handling procedures.

Inputs Required:

domain (string): The primary domain of the company’s website to be analyzed (e.g., “acme.com”).
company_name (string): The name of the company for which the security documentation and policies are being searched (e.g., “Acme Corporation”).

Business Impact: Ensuring compliance with SWIFT CSP standards is crucial for maintaining the integrity and security of financial communications, which directly impacts the overall security posture of an organization. This includes protecting sensitive information, preventing unauthorized access, and ensuring that all transactions are conducted securely and in accordance with established policies.

Risk Levels:

Critical: Conditions that pose a significant risk to security, potentially leading to severe consequences such as data breaches or regulatory fines.
- Lack of comprehensive security policy.
- Inadequate incident response procedures.
- Poor data protection measures.
- Insufficient access control mechanisms.
High: Conditions that could lead to serious disruptions or significant risks, requiring immediate attention.
- Missing SOC 2 compliance certification.
- Lack of ISO 27001 certification.
- Inadequate evidence of penetration testing.
- Infrequent vulnerability scanning or assessment activities.
Medium: Conditions that may lead to moderate risks and require careful monitoring and attention.
- Partially implemented security policies.
- Inefficient access control mechanisms.
Low: Conditions with minimal risk, typically requiring routine checks rather than immediate action.
- Minor discrepancies in compliance certifications.
- Minor issues in public policy pages.
Info: Informational findings that do not directly impact security but are relevant for awareness and continuous improvement.
- Presence of outdated documentation or policies.
- Minimal gaps in the provided documentation.

Example Findings:

The company lacks a detailed security policy, which could lead to inadequate protection against cyber threats.
There is no evidence of ISO 27001 certification, indicating a potential gap in information security management.

Financial Fraud Prevention

Purpose: The Financial Fraud Prevention Scanner is designed to detect transaction monitoring and insider threats by analyzing company security documentation, public policy pages, trust center information, and compliance certifications. Its purpose is to ensure robust financial fraud prevention measures are in place through the identification of comprehensive security policies, SOC 2 compliance certification, real-time transaction analysis capabilities, insider threat prevention strategies, and regular audits and assessments.

What It Detects:

Security Policy Indicators: Identifies the presence of comprehensive security policies, including incident response plans, data protection measures, and access control protocols.
Maturity Indicators: Confirms SOC 2 compliance certification, validates ISO 27001 standards adherence, detects penetration testing activities, and identifies vulnerability scanning and assessment processes.
Transaction Monitoring Systems: Evaluates the implementation of transaction monitoring tools, checks for real-time transaction analysis capabilities, verifies anomaly detection mechanisms, and ensures automated alerts and response procedures are in place.
Insider Threat Programs: Assesses insider threat prevention strategies, identifies employee background check processes, evaluates access control and privilege management systems, and confirms monitoring of privileged user activities.
Compliance Documentation: Reviews compliance with financial regulations (e.g., PCI DSS, GDPR), checks for regular audits and assessments, verifies incident reporting procedures, and ensures transparency in security practices through public disclosures.

Inputs Required:

domain (string): Primary domain to analyze (e.g., acme.com)
company_name (string): Company name for statement searching (e.g., “Acme Corporation”)

Business Impact: This scanner is crucial as it helps organizations identify gaps in their financial fraud prevention strategies, ensuring robust security measures are in place to detect transaction anomalies and insider threats effectively. It supports compliance with regulatory requirements and enhances trust among stakeholders by demonstrating a commitment to strong cybersecurity practices.

Risk Levels:

Critical: Conditions that pose immediate risk to the organization’s operations or critical assets, requiring urgent attention and mitigation.
High: Conditions that significantly impact security posture but do not necessarily lead to immediate risks, requiring high priority for resolution.
Medium: Conditions that have a moderate impact on security but may require some action within an acceptable timeframe.
Low: Informational findings that provide insights into potential improvements or areas of interest without significant risk.
Info: Lowest severity level indicating minor issues or suggestions for enhancements.

If the README doesn’t specify exact risk levels, infer them based on the scanner’s purpose and impact.

Example Findings: The scanner might flag a lack of detailed security policies as critical findings, while noting incomplete compliance certifications under high severity. Medium risks could include outdated penetration testing reports, and low risks might involve minor inconsistencies in public disclosures about data handling practices.

Digital Banking Security

Purpose: The Digital Banking Security Scanner is a tool crafted to scrutinize the security vulnerabilities of mobile banking applications and APIs. It embarks on an exhaustive examination that probes DNS, HTTP, TLS/SSL configurations, and session management, aiming to unearth potential loopholes that might be exploited by malicious entities.

What It Detects:

Insecure Security Headers: The scanner flags the absence of robust security headers such as strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-frame-options, and x-content-type-options.
Weak TLS/SSL Configurations: It identifies weaknesses in the encryption protocols used, detecting versions like TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1, as well as cipher suites that are deemed insecure, including RC4.
Misconfigured DNS Records: The scanner scrutinizes DNS records for anomalies such as missing SPF, DMARC, and DKIM records which could lead to security vulnerabilities.
Insecure HTTP Redirections: It alerts when the application redirects traffic from HTTPS to non-HTTPS URLs, exposing it to potential man-in-the-middle attacks.
Open Ports and Services: The scanner scans for unsecured or outdated services running on common ports like 80 (HTTP) and 21 (FTP), which can be exploited by attackers.

Inputs Required:

domain (string): The primary domain to analyze, e.g., acme.com. This parameter is crucial for DNS queries and general network configuration checks.
url (string): A specific URL endpoint that needs to be tested for security configurations. For instance, https://acme.com/api helps in assessing the security posture of API endpoints.

Business Impact: Ensuring robust security measures within mobile banking applications is paramount as it directly impacts customer trust and financial integrity. The scanner’s findings can significantly influence risk assessments and compliance requirements for digital banking platforms.

Risk Levels:

Critical: Findings that could lead to immediate system compromise or significant data exposure, such as misconfigured DNS settings affecting SPF, DMARC, and DKIM records.
High: Issues that pose a high risk of security breaches, including weak TLS versions in use and insecure HTTP redirections.
Medium: Vulnerabilities that might be exploited but do not compromise the entire system, like missing content security policies or outdated service ports.
Low: Informal findings that are less critical but still need attention, such as minor misalignments in header configurations.
Info: General information about services running on open ports which is useful for operational awareness but does not directly affect security posture.

If specific risk levels are not detailed in the README, they have been inferred based on the severity of detected issues.

Example Findings:

A mobile banking application fails to enforce HTTPS strictly through strict-transport-security headers, allowing for potential interception of data in transit.
The TLS configuration of a service endpoint uses outdated protocols like TLSv1.0, which is susceptible to known vulnerabilities and should be upgraded for enhanced security.